Transcript of hearing on Delaware waste regulations held October 22, 2007

Read and be enlightened.

[A few parts highlighted in red by Green Delaware]

1                  THE STATE OF DELAWARE
3                    .. .. .. .. .. ..
4            October 22, 2007 – Public Hearing
5              Delaware Proposed Regulations
6                Governing Hazardous Waste
7                    .. .. .. .. .. ..
8               HEARING OFFICER:  Lisa Vest
9                    .. .. .. .. .. ..
10             A Public Hearing held on October 22, 2007,
11   commencing at 6:08 p.m. at the Department of Natural
12   Resources Conference Room, 89 Kings Highway, Dover,
13   Delaware, reported by Lorena J. Hartnett, a Registered
14   Professional Reporter and Notary Public.
15                    .. .. .. .. .. ..
22                     Wilcox & Fetzer
1330 King Street – Wilmington, DE  19801
(302) 655-0477
1             MS. VEST:  Alright, let’s go ahead and start
2    tonight.  Officially, for the record, the time is
3    6:08 p.m.  It is Monday, October 22, 2007, and we are
4    going to go ahead and start this hearing.
5             This is the first of two hearings that will be
6    held here at DNREC tonight.  The first one is going to
7    be amendments concerning Delaware’s Regulations
8    Governing Hazardous Waste.
9             At this point we have waited approximately ten
10    minutes past the set start time, and there are no
11    members of the public currently here for this to offer
12    comment to the Department.
13             That being said, I am going to turn it over to
14    Bill Davis to enter the Department’s exhibits, and if,
15    after he is done, there are members of the public, we
16    will turn the floor over to them for comment at that
17    time.
18             MR. DAVIS:  My name is Bill Davis, and I
19    represent the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
20    Branch of DNREC tonight.
21             There will be five exhibits entered into the
22    public record in support of amending the Delaware
23    Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste.
24             The first exhibit is a synopsis of the
1    proposed regulatory changes.  This gives a brief
2    summary of each change, including the Federal Register
3    reference and whether the Delaware amendment is as
4    stringent as the federal equivalent.
5             The amendments that we are proposing are
6    three.  The first involves non-wastewaters from dyes
7    and pigments, and this amendment corrects typographical
8    errors in the regulatory text.
9             The second involves the new uniform waste
10    manifest, and this amendment is correcting errors and
11    does not create any new regulatory requirements.
12             The final amendment are state-specific to
13    Delaware, and these are used oil container closure, the
14    uniform manifest retractions of the federal portion,
15    financial assurance, in addition to federal language
16    plus typographical corrections, and then, finally,
17    clarifications of flow charts in Part 266, Appendix 9.
18             The second exhibit is the public workshop held
19    on August 22, 2007.  This includes the presentation,
20    the sign-in sheet, an example of the invitation letter
21    sent to hazardous waste generators within Delaware, the
22    public meeting notification from DNREC’s web page, and
23    two public notices that appeared in newspapers.
24             Exhibit 3 is the public comments from the
1    workshop and the corresponding reply from the Solid and
2    Hazardous Waste Management Branch.
3             Exhibit 4 is the public notices for tonight’s
4    hearing, published in the News Journal and the Delaware
5    State News on September 26, 2007.
6             Finally, Exhibit 5 is the proposed amendments
7    to the Delaware Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste.
8    These are shown in blue and red strike-out and
9    underline format to highlight the changes.
10             This concludes the exhibits being submitted.
11             MS. VEST:  Okay, thank you, Mr. Davis.  Let
12    the record reflect that the Department’s exhibits as
13    identified by Mr. Davis are being entered into the
14    record at this time.
15             Does that conclude the Department’s
16    presentation tonight?
17             MR. DAVIS:  Yes, it does.
18             MS. VEST:  Okay, at this time I just want to
19    note for the record that there has been nobody new from
20    the public coming in.  So, that being said, I am going
21    to go off the record here for approximately ten minutes
22    just to double check and make sure that no one else
23    wants to come in and offer comment.  We will go back on
24    the record in approximately ten minutes time.
1                       (Off the record from 6:12 p.m.
2                       to 6:21 p.m.)
3             MS. VEST:  At this point I am going to go back
4    on the record.  The time is 6:21.  There have been
5    additional people coming in, and at this point I am
6    going to open the floor up if there is anyone here
7    present who would like to offer comment on the first
8    hearing tonight, which are the amendments to the
9    Regulations Governing Delaware Hazardous Waste.  Is
10    there anybody here who would like to speak?
11    Mr. Muller?
12             MR. MULLER:  Do you want me to talk into that
13    mike?
14             MS. VEST:  If you just stand up so people can
15    hear you, I don’t think you need a mike.
16             MR. MULLER:  I have a couple of questions
17    first, and I realize you have run through a
18    presentation and I wasn’t here, but I would like, in
19    case it’s not in the record, some clarification on just
20    why at this moment that Delaware Hazardous Waste
21    Regulations are being amended.  Is that part of like an
22    annual cycle of doing it or —
23             MS. VEST:  Bill, did you want to respond to
24    that?
1             MR. DAVIS:  The state is required to keep our
2    program at least as stringent as the federal program.
3             MR. MULLER:  Okay.
4             MR. DAVIS:  And, as the federal program issues
5    new standards, we need to adopt those to remain as
6    stringent, so, yes, this is part of a routine adoption
7    of keeping our program as stringent as the federal
8    program.
9             MR. MULLER:  And does that happen on a regular
10    cycle or just when the feds have changed, or why is it
11    happening at this particular time?
12             MR. DAVIS:  It is happening at this time
13    because of the three hazardous waste amendments.  The
14    first two, the federal have already implemented those
15    two, so we picked those two up.
16             And, while we have the Delaware Regulations
17    Governing Hazardous Waste open, we can also make some
18    state-specific changes too, and those are the — That’s
19    Amendment 3 that you have seen.
20             MR. MULLER:  I have seen it, and I noticed, I
21    will just mention the first one, which says used oil
22    container closure, and I don’t mean to ridicule that,
23    because it’s probably a good idea for people that are
24    collecting used oil in open tubs or something, that
1    probably should be changed.
2             But the reason I am here, ladies and
3    gentlemen, is that in the history of Green Delaware,
4    which goes back to 1994, we have had rather many
5    controversies and discussions involving the management
6    of waste in Delaware, and there are a lot of what seem
7    to me to be open issues.
8             For instance, the issue of the emanations of
9    material — I am trying to use a general term and not a
10    term of art — from the DuPont Edgemoor Plant and
11    whether or not that material is or is not something
12    that should be considered a hazardous waste, and what I
13    am getting at is when I read through these things, none
14    of the changes that you are proposing seem to me to
15    address what, in my experience, have been open issues
16    regarding the management of hazardous waste in
17    Delaware.
18             I really don’t think that used oil container
19    closure — And I mean that’s fine, but we have a
20    facility in Edgemoor that’s now discharging about
21    150,000 tons a year of waste, loaded with arsenic,
22    cadmium, dioxin, uranium, thorium, all kinds of
23    unpleasant materials, and there is a big controversy
24    over whether a pile of that should be left by the side
1    of the Delaware River.
2             Meanwhile, all that stuff is being sent to an
3    ordinary garbage dump in Lee County, South Carolina,
4    with no regulation at all from DNREC.
5             So I think that the waste regulations are in
6    need of some substantial change to address and clarify
7    some of the waste issues that Delaware is struggling
8    with, and I don’t see any indication of that in here.
9             And I don’t mean to be quarrelsome about it,
10    because it looks to me as if you have kind of looked at
11    the regulations through a microscope in proposing these
12    changes, but I want to suggest that the solid and
13    hazardous waste branch ought to take a wider look at
14    what’s going on.
15             And, very candidly, a very high percentage of
16    the scandals and controversies that we have got in
17    Delaware have got to do with waste management.
18             You know, just last week Bob Haynes conducted
19    a hearing on the Pigeon Point garbage dump, and
20    although that would be considered primarily a matter
21    for the solid rather than the hazardous waste
22    regulations, hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash
23    are coming in there every year from out of state, and
24    the EPA has a proceeding going on now, which I will put
1    into the record, and the issue there is that although
2    coal ash is not now regulated, it is, in fact, nasty
3    stuff, it’s full of hazardous constituents, and I heard
4    a lot of testimony from a variety of people who are
5    very upset that this material is being hauled into
6    Delaware and put on a dump that’s supposedly closed.
7    It’s being done under pretext.
8             MS. VEST:  I understand, Alan, and that record
9    is still being open, but as a matter of point here,
10    that’s Pigeon Point and that’s another hearing matter.
11    This hearing tonight is just for comments on the
12    proposed regs.
13             MR. MULLER:  Well, I understand that, Lisa,
14    and the reason I am making that comment is simply to
15    make the point that Delaware’s regulations governing
16    hazardous waste aren’t, in fact, governing effectively
17    the management of hazardous waste in Delaware and some
18    very substantial changes are needed in those
19    regulations far and above, you know, having a cap on a
20    used oil tank.
21             And I won’t go on and on now at length about
22    that, but I think it’s important to note that there are
23    many, many issues that aren’t addressed in this
24    document, and the record needs to remain open in order
1    that we and other members of the public have an
2    opportunity to comment on that.
3             MS. VEST:  Duly noted, and the record should
4    reflect, I will say it now, that the record is going to
5    remain open for public comment until the close of
6    business October 31, so, you know, absolutely if you
7    feel like you would or other members would like to
8    submit written comments, please do so.  That gives you
9    a full week to get more comments in, and they will
10    become part of the record.
11             MR. MULLER:  I know they will, and I would
12    like to ask you to hold the record open for 30 days.
13             MS. VEST:  I will take that under advisement.
14             MR. MULLER:  You are only talking ten, and I
15    don’t think that —
16             MS. VEST:  But, Alan, these have been noticed
17    for awhile.
18             MR. MULLER:  Well, they have, and you are
19    quite right about that, but it’s also true that there
20    hasn’t been any substantial public outreach about this
21    that I am aware of, and I haven’t seen anything in any
22    DNREC publications inviting public comment.
23             MS. VEST:  Did the Department not workshop
24    this?
1             MR. DAVIS:  Yes, we did workshop this, yes.
2             MS. VEST:  And when did you workshop it?
3             MR. DAVIS:  That is shown in exhibit — That
4    is shown in Exhibit 2.  We had a workshop on August 22,
5    and here is the presentation, and we also received some
6    comments, and these are the people who participated,
7    and here is the letter that went to all the hazardous
8    waste generators in the state, who they were sent to,
9    and here is the notice that was on the DNREC web page
10    and the public notice that appeared.
11             MR. MULLER:  And I was in Minnesota at that
12    time and I didn’t attend the workshop, but I noticed
13    your mailing list was hazardous waste generators?
14             MR. DAVIS:  Yes.
15             MR. MULLER:  Did you send that to the press or
16    to any nongovernmental organizations, advocacy groups,
17    any other organizations?
18             MR. DAVIS:  DNREC did issue a press release,
19    yes.
20             MR. MULLER:  I am just asking about that
21    mailing.
22             MR. DAVIS:  That was a specific letter
23    specifically to hazardous waste generators.
24             MS. VEST:  Just for clarity sake, Mr. Muller,
1    if you weren’t aware of that or if you would like to
2    get copies of the Department’s exhibits, we can get
3    them to you, but at this point we are bleeding into
4    another hearing, so if you do have additional comments,
5    I would ask if you could put them in writing and get
6    them to the Department.
7             I will take it under advisement if we can keep
8    the record open longer, but at this point, with the
9    Department having workshopped it and with this being
10    noticed for over a month now that it was going to be
11    happening tonight and nobody else showing up, I am not
12    inclined to keep it open beyond October 31.  Do you
13    have any other additional comments?
14             MR. MULLER:  No, I don’t.
15             MS. VEST:  Okay, is there anybody else here
16    present that would like to offer comments?  Again, this
17    is to close up or to wrap up, rather, the first hearing
18    tonight, which are the amendments governing the
19    hazardous waste.
20             MS. OVERLAND:  I am Carol Overland of Port
21    Penn.  I do have just a question I need some
22    clarification on.
23             MS. VEST:  Sure.
24             MS. OVERLAND:  On this amendment we see about
1    financial where you have Section 264.43 H and G and
2    then 5 H and G.
3             MS. VEST:  Hold on.  Did you get all of that?
4    (Speaking to reporter)  Okay, I just wanted to make
5    sure.  You were rattling that off quick.  I wanted to
6    make sure the court reporter got it.
7             MS. OVERLAND:  So is that duplicative, because
8    it looks like there is the same language for both G and
9    H of both 3 and 5 on Page 13 and 14, is that intended
10    to be that way?
11             MR. DAVIS:  Yes, it is.  One is for Part 264,
12    and one is for Part 265.
13             MS. OVERLAND:  Oh, oh, oh, okay, I was just
14    looking on the suffix.  Got it.  Okay, that was it.
15    Thank you.
16             MS. VEST:  Very good.  With no further
17    questions or comments being offered for the record at
18    this time, we are going to close the hearing.  Again,
19    this is the first hearing for the amendments governing
20    the hazardous waste.  We are going to take a brief
21    five-minute break and go back on the record.  We will
22    begin the public hearing for the second portion, which
23    is governing solid waste.  I also want to again
24    reiterate that the record will remain open for receipt
1    of public comment through the close of business
2    October 31, 2007.
3                       (Concluded at 6:32 p.m.)
1                       CERTIFICATE
2            I, Lorena J. Hartnett, a Notary Public
3   and Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby
4   certify that the foregoing is an accurate and
5   complete transcription of the proceeding held at
6   the time and place stated herein, and that the said
7   proceeding was recorded by me and then reduced to
8   typewriting under my direction, and constitutes a true
9   record of the testimony given by said witnesses.
10            I further certify that I am not a relative,
11   employee, or attorney of any of the parties or a
12   relative or employee of either counsel, and that I am
13   in no way interested directly or indirectly in this
14   action.
15            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
16   hand and affixed my seal of office on this 25th day of
17   October 2007.
21               ___________________________
22               Lorena J. Hartnett, R.P.R.
23      Reporter Certificate #134-RPR, Exp. 01-31-2008
1                  THE STATE OF DELAWARE
3                    .. .. .. .. .. ..
4            October 22, 2007 – Public Hearing
5   Delaware Proposed Regulations Governing Solid Waste
6                    .. .. .. .. .. ..
7               HEARING OFFICER:  Lisa Vest
8                    .. .. .. .. .. ..
9             A Public Hearing held on October 22, 2007,
10   commencing at 6:38 p.m. at the Department of Natural
11   Resources Conference Room, 89 Kings Highway, Dover,
12   Delaware, reported by Lorena J. Hartnett, a Registered
13   Professional Reporter and Notary Public.
14                    .. .. .. .. .. ..
21                     Wilcox & Fetzer
1330 King Street – Wilmington, DE  19801
(302) 655-0477
1             MS. VEST:  Good evening, we are going to go
2    ahead and start now.  My name is Lisa Vest, and the
3    Secretary has designated me to be the hearing officer
4    appointed for this matter.
5             Let the record reflect that the time is now
6    6:38, and we are going to begin the second of two
7    hearings tonight.
8             The matter at hand presently is to receive
9    public comment and answer any questions that may be out
10    there regarding Delaware’s Proposed Amendments to
11    Regulations Governing Solid Waste.
12             What we are going to do is, as far as the
13    order of things here tonight, the Department is going
14    to enter their exhibits into the record and provide a
15    brief overview of what the proposed regulations concern
16    tonight or the amendments to those regulations, rather,
17    and then at that point we will open the floor up to any
18    kind of public comment that might be out there to
19    incorporate into the record for the Secretary’s review.
20             I should note again for the record before we
21    begin that there are a lot of issues out there
22    concerning hazardous waste and solid waste, I think, in
23    Delaware right now.  We have to keep this hearing on
24    track, and the purpose of this hearing tonight is
1    simply comments and questions regarding the proposed
2    amendments to the Regulations Governing Solid Waste.
3             That being said, I am going to turn it over to
4    Bill Davis, who is going to give the Department’s
5    summary tonight.
6             MR. MULLER:  Before you proceed —
7             MS. VEST:  Yes?
8             MR. MULLER:  — Green Delaware would like to
9    be acknowledged as a party to this proceeding.
10             MS. VEST:  Alan, I understand that question,
11    or I understand that request.  I have to deny that at
12    this time.  Delaware law has been completely solid with
13    regard to admittance of other parties to these
14    proceedings.  It’s a regulatory matter to promulgate
15    some new amendments, so your request is acknowledged
16    but it’s denied.
17             MR. MULLER:  Okay, thank you.
18             MS. VEST:  Bill?
19             MR. DAVIS:  My name is Bill Davis, and I
20    represent the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
21    Branch of DNREC tonight.  There will be five exhibits
22    entered into the public record in support of amending
23    the Delaware Regulations Concerning Solid Waste.
24             The first exhibit is a synopsis of the
1    proposed regulation changes.  This gives a brief
2    summary of each change.  This includes five amendments
3    to the solid waste regulations.  The first amendment
4    involves permits, and there are three changes regarding
5    that.
6             Amendment Number 2 and 3 involve sanitary and
7    industrial landfills, and both of those clarify a
8    reference to an engineering report.
9             Amendment Number 4 is in regard to
10    environmental covenants, and that is replacing
11    language.
12             Amendment Number 5 is in regards to infectious
13    waste, and there are 18 separate changes in regards to
14    that portion of the regulation.
15             The second exhibit is the public workshop held
16    on July 25, 2007.  This includes the presentation, the
17    sign-in sheet, the public meeting notification from
18    DNREC’s web page, and two public notices that appeared
19    in newspapers.
20             Exhibit 3 is the public comment from the
21    workshop, which the Solid and Hazardous Waste
22    Management Branch addressed by revising the proposed
23    amendments as shown in Exhibit 5.
24             Other portions of the comment shown in Exhibit
1    3 that are not relevant to the 2007 amendments of these
2    regulations are being addressed separately.
3             Exhibit 4 is the public notices for tonight’s
4    hearing published in the News Journal and the Delaware
5    State News on September 26, 2007.
6             Finally, Exhibit 5 is the proposed amendments
7    to the Delaware Regulations Governing Solid Waste.
8    These are shown in blue and red strike-out and
9    underline format to highlight the changes.
10             This concludes the exhibits being submitted.
11             MS. VEST:  Thank you, Mr. Davis.  Let the
12    record reflect that the Department’s exhibits, as
13    identified by Mr. Davis, are formally entered into the
14    record at this time.
15             Did the Department wish to offer any kind of
16    summary or synopsis of this other than just submitting
17    their exhibits at this time?
18             MR. DAVIS:  It is shown in the synopsis.
19             MS. VEST:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  At
20    this point I am going to open the floor up to any kind
21    of public comment or questions that the public may
22    have.
23             Obviously, all the public questions and
24    comments will be forwarded to the Secretary for his
1    review on this.  Again, keep your comments and
2    questions consistent to the subject matter of this
3    hearing, which are just the regulatory amendments at
4    issue.
5             Alan, I know that you have comments.  Is there
6    anybody else here this evening besides Mr. Muller that
7    has comments?
8             Okay, Alan, the floor is yours.  And could I
9    just ask, just to make sure the court reporter gets it,
10    if you could stand over there by her?  I just want to
11    make sure that she gets everything.
12             MR. MULLER:  Is that microphone working?
13             MS. VEST:  Honestly, I don’t know if it is or
14    not.  Bill, can you check that?
15             MR. DAVIS:  Yes.
16             MR. MULLER:  Okay, how about this one?  I only
17    have a few questions and comments.  But, Lisa, I would
18    like to ask you, you commented about keeping the
19    hearing on track.  Do I hear you saying — What does
20    that mean?  Does that mean that you don’t want to hear
21    testimony on whether these regulations meet the needs
22    of Delaware?
23             MS. VEST:  No, it means that this hearing is
24    exclusive tonight just to receive comment and questions
1    regarding the proposed amendments to the regulations at
2    issue.
3             I am not going to allow the record to sprawl
4    into Pigeon Point or any other kind of waste matters
5    that are currently subjects of their own hearings.
6             MR. MULLER:  Well, let’s see now.  Suppose our
7    point was, and, in fact, it is, that these proposed
8    amendments are inadequate and don’t have the effect of
9    causing Delaware’s Solid Waste Regulations to meet the
10    needs?  Do you consider that to be outside the scope of
11    the hearing?
12             MS. VEST:  No, not at all.  That’s a comment,
13    and you just made it.
14             MR. MULLER:  Okay.
15             MS. VEST:  And if you want to elaborate on
16    that, again the record is open through the close of
17    business on October 31.  So in no way is the Department
18    trying to squelch the public’s right to offer comments.
19    I just want to make sure that we don’t become a bloated
20    record on matters that are already the subject of other
21    hearings.
22             MR. MULLER:  Well, it seems to me, frankly,
23    that you are trying to squelch me.  I hope we don’t
24    have the kind of wrangle that you and I have had in
1    previous hearings.
2             I have, first of all, two exhibits to offer,
3    and I am going to put them up front, and these exhibits
4    illustrate how solid waste is now being managed in
5    Delaware.
6             One of them — They are both pictures of the
7    Cherry Island garbage dump, and the caption on the left
8    one shows a burning dump with a lot of smoke and fumes
9    coming out, and it says “20 May ’05, fire in the active
10    area.”
11             And the second one shows a lot of garbage
12    bags, debris, upon the surface.  It’s dated 17 May ’05,
13    and it’s entitled, “Excessive trash/lack of cover on
14    the top of the landfill.”
15             Now, I could have brought many such images,
16    literally hundreds of them, but I think these
17    illustrate the fact that the present management of
18    solid waste in Delaware is not satisfactory.
19             And, yet, it is the position of the
20    Department, as I understand it, that solid waste is
21    being managed in accordance with the Delaware
22    Regulations for Solid Waste, and I hope my point is
23    clear that we are not where we need to be with regard
24    to this.
1             I would also like to put into the record, and
2    let me put this mike down for a minute — I do have
3    paper copies of these.  These are images.  These were
4    taken by me on November 11, 2007, and they show trucks
5    dumping waste at the —
6             MS. VEST:  Alan, excuse me —
7             MR. MULLER:  — Pigeon Point landfill.
8             MS. VEST:  I don’t mean to be rude, but did
9    you misstate — You said November of ’07.
10             MR. MULLER:  Yes, I did.
11             MS. VEST:  Okay.
12             MR. MULLER:  And I would like these to be
13    marked as an exhibit.
14             MS. VEST:  For the record, they are not
15    November.  It’s September 11 of ’07.  I just didn’t
16    want there to be confusion.
17             MR. MULLER:  Oh, did I say November?
18             MS. VEST:  Yes.  I just wanted to correct
19    that.
20             MR. MULLER:  Okay, sorry about that.
21             MS. VEST:  Okay.  Alan, if I could, just so
22    the record is clear, you are presenting three
23    photocopies of photographs all taken by you on
24    September 11 of ’07?
1             MR. MULLER:  They were.
2             MS. VEST:  Okay.
3             MR. MULLER:  And I would be glad to e-mail to
4    you copies of the original images with dates, if you
5    would like to have that.
6             MS. VEST:  Let the record show that I am going
7    to enter these three photographs of photocopies of
8    Mr. Muller’s as Muller Exhibit Number 1.  Go ahead,
9    Mr. Muller.
10             MR. MULLER:  Okay, and my point is these are
11    images of the two solid waste landfills in New Castle
12    County that are generally accepting solid waste, and
13    the conditions of neither of them are in any way
14    satisfactory, and we would like to see Delaware have
15    solid waste regulations that would result in the
16    satisfactory management of solid waste. That may be a
17    comment that is obviously infantile, but this is not
18    the present situation.
19             Now, let me go through the regulations.  I
20    have a few comments and questions here.  Forgive my
21    relatively unorganized presentation.  At Section
22, which is application procedures for sanitary
23    and industrial landfills, it says, “An environmental
24    assessment shall be performed to provide a detailed
1    analysis of the potential impact of the proposed
2    facility on the environment.  Factors to be considered
3    include,” and I won’t read all of them, but one of them
4    is public health and safety, and another is social and
5    economic factors, and I am wondering if it could be
6    explained to me what criteria would be used to analyze
7    these two items.
8             MS. VEST:  Is the Department able to respond
9    to that at this time?
10             MR. DAVIS:  I would like to note that his
11    specific question, those portions of the regulation are
12    not being amended.  However, we have some other members
13    of the staff here tonight who might be able to
14    elaborate on that question.
15             MR. DALTON:  Can you repeat the question?
16             MR. MULLER:  Okay, the whole thing or?  I
17    would like to know how public health and safety would
18    be incorporated into an environmental assessment for a
19    proposed dump.  Just what would that mean?  It’s stated
20    here, but I don’t see any description of how that would
21    be done or what that would mean in practice.
22             MR. DALTON:  You are asking what kind of
23    criteria would go into that?
24             MR. MULLER:  Exactly.  I mean, for example, it
1    could be — The criteria could be that no harm to the
2    health of any resident was allowed to be caused by the
3    facility or something like that, and that might even be
4    a reasonable one, but I just don’t see any detail in
5    here on what that means.
6             And maybe the lack of detail is the reason we
7    get, you know, this in practice (pointing to picture),
8    and I am pointing to the picture of the burning dump.
9    I guess I should say that.
10             MS. VEST:  Alan, I am going to remind you
11    that you are asking for the Department’s opinion as to
12    how we do these regulations as a whole.  It’s not
13    what’s at issue tonight.  What’s at issue tonight are
14    the proposed amendments to the regulation.
15             And I am not trying to thwart you, but I am
16    going to give you very little leniency on this.  This
17    is not why we are here tonight.
18             MR. MULLER:  Well, I think it’s why I am here
19    tonight.  I think this is a hearing on the adequacy of
20    these regulations.
21             MS. VEST:  No, it’s not.  No, it’s not.  It’s
22    not a public hearing on the adequacy of the
23    Department’s regulations.  It is a hearing to receive
24    public comment and specific questions on the
1    regulations that are being proposed to be amended, not
2    the whole book.
3             And, again, I am not going to waste the
4    Department’s time arguing this with you.  If you wish
5    to give us your treatise or wish to give us this in
6    written comment, by all means, you know, the record is
7    open through the close of the hearing, but we are not
8    going to sit here and have questions given to the
9    Department on why and how we write our amendments as a
10    whole.  These are —
11             MR. MULLER:  Well —
12             MS. VEST:  These are questions and comments to
13    be directed about the proposed amendments, not the
14    whole book.
15             MR. MULLER:  Well —
16             MS. VEST:  So, again, I am giving you very
17    little leniency here.
18             MR. MULLER:  Well, I notice that you appear
19    not to be allowing the gentleman to answer my question.
20    Is that your intention?
21             MS. VEST:  No, he can answer them, but I am
22    going to give you very little leniency.  The very next
23    question should be a question about the proposed
24    amendments.  This question is outside the scope of this
1    hearing, and I am just warning you from the start.
2             MR. MULLER:  Well, as I said before, Lisa, I
3    am here to point out that the proposed amendments to
4    the regulations are inadequate and unsatisfactory.
5             MS. VEST:  Well, then I would suggest that you
6    gear your questions towards the proposed amendments and
7    not those that aren’t at issue here tonight.
8             MR. MULLER:  Well, they are at issue from our
9    point of view, that this is an example of another
10    amendment that is needed to the regulations.  We need
11    to have some clarity of just how public health and
12    safety would be assessed, and I would like to know how
13    that’s being done now, and I would like you to allow
14    the gentleman to answer my question about it.
15             MS. VEST:  Is the Department able to provide
16    Mr. Muller with a brief explanation of this?  Yes or
17    no?  I mean is the Department ready?  Because the
18    Department was not geared up to answer questions about
19    their regulations as a whole tonight.  We are here to
20    answer questions about the proposed amendments on the
21    table.
22             MR. DALTON:  I think the forum to do that is
23    to address it in comments if he wants to submit
24    comments.  I think that’s the best forum for us to
1    address it under at this point.
2             MS. VEST:  Okay.  There is your answer, Alan.
3             MR. MULLER:  So I don’t get an answer to that
4    question?
5             MS. VEST:  No, the answer to the question is
6    if you pose a specific question in writing to the
7    Department, they will make sure they get a response to
8    you about it, but that’s not why we are here tonight.
9             MR. MULLER:  Okay, let me try another one,
10    then.  There is one here under the same section
11    entitled soil quality that is a proposed amendment.
12    It’s an additional item, I believe.
13             MS. VEST:  Okay.
14             MR. MULLER:  Would Your Honor consider it
15    appropriate for me to ask how soil quality would be
16    assessed in the implementation of these regulations?
17    What does that mean, soil quality?
18             MS. VEST:  Is the Department able to give an
19    answer to Mr. Muller ‘s question, or is that better
20    posed in a written question and response?
21             MR. DALTON:  I think we can address that under
22    a written request and do it that way.  I would like to
23    add, though, that these requirements are being added in
24    and being made.  It’s additional requirements for the
1    facilities that’s being added in, well, soil quality is
2    being added in for landfills and infectious waste
3    facilities.
4             We are making the criteria here equivalent for
5    all of our permitted facilities, transfer stations, for
6    landfills, infectious waste facilities.  I mean we are
7    increasing the requirements, because right now some of
8    these requirements listed in the blue are not required
9    for certain facilities, and I mean we can certainly go
10    through and discuss that at length, but —
11             MR. MULLER:  Well, you know, I am a citizen
12    and I came here to discuss these things, and it seems
13    to me that you folks in the Department that are
14    proposing these regulations, then you ought to be
15    prepared to discuss them.
16             Now, it makes sense to have similar criteria
17    for different types of facilities, but to merely list
18    soil quality without telling us what that means or how
19    that would be implemented in practice isn’t, in my
20    opinion, satisfactory.
21             And, if you put it in here, you must have had
22    a reason for putting it in there and some intention
23    regarding, and I would like to know what that is.
24             MS. VEST:  Can the Department provide a
1    further explanation to Mr. Muller in writing if he
2    poses it as a question in writing?
3             MR. DALTON:  We can do that.  I can give him a
4    very short answer right now.  Some of these criteria,
5    in looking at a couple facilities that were cited, were
6    found to be deficient and needed some research on some
7    of these criteria, so we added these in to cover that
8    under the application process.
9             MR. MULLER:  Well, I appreciate the answer,
10    but it’s not very specific.  You know, “An
11    environmental assessment shall be performed.”  Is the
12    intent to set some criteria regarding acceptable soil
13    quality under a dump or around a dump, and, if so, what
14    would it be?
15             MR. DALTON:  Again, I think if you want to put
16    that in writing, I think we will address it.
17             MR. MULLER:  Well, you understand my problem,
18    and I will again in this hearing ask that the record be
19    held open for 30 days, but if you are going to close
20    the record and — You know, in a previous proceeding we
21    received a response from the Department in a matter of
22    hours before the record was to be closed, and it didn’t
23    provide an opportunity for a response, for dialogue,
24    for communication with the public about it, and I don’t
1    want that to happen again.
2             Alright, now, I would like to move on to
3    Section 4.4, application procedures for resource
4    recovery facilities.  What kinds of facilities are
5    covered under that?  I believe you guys are calling a
6    garbage incinerator a resource recovery facility?  Am I
7    correct?
8             MR. DALTON:  I am going to read you back the
9    definition from the regs.  Resource recovery means the
10    process by which materials, excluding those under the
11    control of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which
12    still have useful physical or chemical properties after
13    serving specific purpose, are reused or recycled for
14    the same or another purpose, including as an energy
15    source, use as an energy source.
16             MR. MULLER:  Okay, so this would include
17    incinerators with energy recovery?
18             MR. DALTON:  And resource recovery facility
19    means a facility that is either a materials recovery
20    facility or a thermal recovery facility.
21             MR. MULLER:  Well, we throw a lot of terms
22    around here.  I am just trying to get clear about
23    whether this is intended to cover a garbage
24    incinerator.
1             MR. DALTON:  I am not as familiar with this,
2    Karen.  (Handing to Ms. J’Anthony)
3             MS. J’ANTHONY:  Alan, I will read you the
4    definition of thermal recovery.  It’s a facility
5    designed to thermally break down solid waste and to
6    recover energy from the solid waste.
7             MR. MULLER:  Well, again, I appreciate that,
8    but, you know, we have had quite recently over the
9    years many campaigns by the Delaware Solid Waste
10    Authority to bring back garbage incineration, and so we
11    look at this regulation and say suppose they did that,
12    you know, what regulations would apply, what would you
13    guys do?  So I am asking you a common-sense question.
14    If a garbage incinerator was to be proposed or
15    permitted, would it be considered to come under this
16    section of the regulations?
17             If you aren’t prepared to answer, I will move
18    on.
19             MR. DALTON:  Well, this would be part of the
20    application requirements for the facility.  This is
21    under Section 4, the permit and application
22    requirements and permit administrative requirements.
23             MR. MULLER:  Okay.
24             MS. J’ANTHONY:  I would like to make one more
1    comment.  Before an incinerator, actually a solid waste
2    incinerator could be entertained, there is criteria in
3    Chapter 60, and the DSWA or whoever decides that they
4    want to operate an incinerator would have to
5    demonstrate they achieved the Chapter 60 requirements
6    before we could entertain it.  And the Chapter 60
7    requirements are quite stringent.
8             MR. MULLER:  Are you talking about an air
9    permit, for example?
10             MS. J’ANTHONY:  No, in 7 Delaware Code,
11    Chapter 60, there are definitions for incinerator, and
12    it also describes the citing criteria for incinerators.
13    And before anyone could ask us to evaluate a permit for
14    an incinerator, they would have to demonstrate that
15    they could achieve this Chapter 60 requirements.
16             MR. MULLER:  Well, that’s true, Karen, and our
17    organization has something to do with the writing of
18    those requirements, but there are people trying to roll
19    them back, and I am here tonight and this is a hearing
20    on the Delaware Regulations Governing Solid Waste, and
21    so my question has simply been one, and I am trying to
22    get an answer, to how would the Solid and Hazardous
23    Waste Branch address an incinerator, and there doesn’t
24    seem to be a lot of clarity there, so I will move on.
1             Section 4.5 is entitled application procedures
2    for transfer facilities, and there is a lot here that I
3    won’t continue with, but, as a practical matter, and
4    again I am a practical person, I think the regulations
5    should deal with the issues that actually exist in
6    Delaware.
7             There is a recycling operation in the City of
8    Wilmington being operated by Recycle Bank, and I think
9    that the recyclables are going to a facility operated
10    by Blue Mountain, and I think there is a transfer
11    station involved, and I was told by Recycle Bank that
12    the facility there for transferring the recyclables was
13    exempt from permitting as a transfer station in
14    Delaware, and I would like to know if that is the case
15    and, if so, you know, have you proposed to change that
16    or is it your view that that kind of a facility should
17    continue to be exempt from permitting or regulation as
18    a transfer station?
19             MS. VEST:  Is there anybody here from the
20    Department that would be ready to answer or offer any
21    kind of answer for Mr. Muller on that?
22             MR. DALTON:  There are exclusions under
23    Section 10 for transfer stations for exemptions.  I
24    don’t know the specifics on the facility you are
1    talking about.  I can read through the exemptions, if
2    you would like, but they are in Section 10.  Well,
3    actually, the old section.  I need the new numbering on
4    that.
5             MS. VEST:  Is this section at all involved
6    with these proposed amendments?
7             MR. DALTON:  Not at all.
8             MR. DAVIS:  Not even in the discussion.
9             MS. VEST:  Move on, Mr. Muller.
10             MR. MULLER:  Well, I am not quite ready to
11    move on yet, because I have a point, which is a
12    facility is being operated, it appears to me a transfer
13    station is being operated, and if it’s exempt from
14    these regulations, it may be that there aren’t, in
15    fact, adequate protections regarding these items that
16    we have, such as air quality, water quality and so on.
17             And we don’t want to see life being made more
18    difficult for the development of the recycling industry
19    in Delaware, but I do think it raises a legitimate
20    question regarding what should be exempted and what
21    should not be.
22             So my suggestion is that, you know, I would
23    like to see a response on that point.  It appears to me
24    that the Department’s answer is that you are not
1    proposing to alter the exemptions, and I think another
2    look should be taken at that.  I would like to have a
3    response on that.
4             MS. J’ANTHONY:  I have one response on that.
5    Just to assist us, can we have the name of this
6    facility that’s operating intentionally a transfer
7    station without a permit?
8             MR. MULLER:  Well, I am not alleging that they
9    are engaging in violations.  I am suggesting that maybe
10    it really is a transfer station even though it’s exempt
11    from the regulations.
12             And I don’t know the name of the facility.  I
13    know that the City of Wilmington is delivering
14    materials there and they go to Recycle Bank for
15    processing in the Philadelphia area.
16             And, you know, my suggestion is that the
17    nature of that facility needs to be looked at and a
18    decision needs to be made about whether, in fact, some
19    kind of permitting should be required for that.  And I
20    don’t know the answer, but I see that it isn’t
21    addressed here, and I think it ought to be.
22             But I will get you, Karen, a more specific
23    name or address for the facility.
24             MS. J’ANTHONY:  Okay, that would be helpful.
1             MR. MULLER:  Okay, now, Amendment 3 speaks to
2    industrial landfills and liner.  Now, there is a
3    proceeding going on now involving the reissuance of
4    permits for a coal ash dump at DuPont Edgemoor Plant?
5             MS. VEST:  And I am not going to entertain any
6    comments or questions in this record on that.  That’s
7    another matter entirely.
8             MR. MULLER:  Well, I don’t think so, Lisa,
9    because here we are, Amendment 3, liner, general
10    provisions, but this is a facility that has no liner
11    and DNREC is proposing to re-issue the permit.
12             MS. VEST:  Alan, I am not going to give you
13    much more leeway on this.  We are not going to talk
14    about Pigeon Point, Cherry Hill, DuPont Edgemoor.
15    These are comments on the regulations at hand.  I am
16    not going to let you bring them in in a sideways
17    manner.
18             If you have comments or concerns about the
19    proposed amendments, we will entertain them.  If you
20    have additional comments that you wish the Department
21    to elaborate on, such as explanations or definitions
22    contained within the amendments, we will certainly
23    entertain those, but I will put a stop to you bringing
24    in other matters inclusive into this record.  It’s not
1    going to happen.
2             MR. MULLER:  Well, I realize, Lisa, that short
3    of a humongous wrangle, it’s going to be very
4    difficult, but my point was to establish a context and
5    to point out why Amendment 3 on industrial landfills is
6    unsatisfactory, because there are issues in Delaware
7    right now involving industrial landfills that need
8    liners and don’t have them.  And the only provision
9    here does not appear to me to address that, and the
10    issue needs to be addressed.
11             The issue that needs to be addressed is that
12    any landfill of that kind that is now operating without
13    a liner should not get a new permit and should not be
14    continued to operate, should not be allowed to continue
15    to operate without a liner.
16             MS. VEST:  And I would certainly encourage you
17    to put that in part of your written comments to the
18    secretary, Allen, but I have to ask you to move along.
19             MR. MULLER:  Well, Lisa, the point of this
20    hearing is supposed to be to establish a record.
21    That’s why we have a court reporter here.  That’s why I
22    am here testifying, and you keep telling me to shut up
23    and go home and write it, and —
24             MS. VEST:  Nobody is telling —
1             MR. MULLER:  — I think you’re violating the
2    intent of the law under which this hearing is being
3    held, and I would like my objection to that to be, I
4    hope, noted by everyone in the room.
5             MS. VEST:  Duly noted.
6             MR. MULLER:  Alright, now, with regard to
7    infectious waste, I don’t understand everything that is
8    in here.  I had a couple of questions.  We have an item
9    entitled exemptions, which is Section 11.4, and
10 is entitled food waste which are pathogenic to
11    humans only through direct ingestion.  In other words,
12    you would have to eat them in order to be — Do I
13    understand this correctly, this means that contaminated
14    food waste would not be considered infectious waste
15    unless you have to eat it in order to be harmed by it?
16             MS. VEST:  Is the Department able to offer an
17    answer at this time to Mr. Muller?
18             MR. DAVIS:  Unfortunately, the regulations
19    aren’t being amended.
20             MS. VEST:  I have to ask you to move on,
21    Mr. Muller.
22             MR. MULLER:  Okay.  Now — Okay, now, here is
23, waste consisting of human anatomical remains,
24    including human fetal remains, managed by a licensed
1    funeral director.
2             Now, I have a reason for bringing this up, and
3    I am sure, Lisa, that you are going to interrupt me as
4    soon as I bring it up, but I will do it anyway because
5    it’s the purpose of the hearing.
6             MS. VEST:  Only if it doesn’t concern that
7    which we are here for tonight, which is the amendments.
8             MR. MULLER:  Well, you and I just disagree
9    fundamentally, so let’s try to not wrangle too much,
10    because we will get finished more quickly that way.
11             I have heard many complaints over the years
12    that funeral places dispose of human blood by pouring
13    it down the drain, and some people find that thought
14    unappealing, particularly because the City of
15    Wilmington pours its sewage untreated into the rivers.
16             So my question is does human anatomical
17    remains, does that include blood?
18             MS. VEST:  Is the Department able to answer or
19    offer a comment as to that?
20             MR. DAVIS:  That portion of the regulation is
21    not open for amendment.
22             MS. VEST:  I am going to have to ask you to
23    move on, Mr. Muller.
24             MR. MULLER:  Okay, well, I have a comment that
1    it doesn’t seem to me that I have received an answer to
2    that, and it seems to me that human waste, if it’s
3    allowed to be poured down the drain, is not adequately
4    regulated in Delaware.  And, if this is the case, and I
5    don’t know whether it is or not, some amendment of this
6    part of the regulations would be appropriate.
7             Now, there is some other stuff in here that I
8    don’t understand, but I want to ask you all about a
9    category of infectious agent known as prions.  Anybody
10    know what they are?
11             MS. VEST:  Alan, is this leading to a question
12    about the proposed amendments?
13             MR. MULLER:  It certainly is, Lisa.
14             MS. VEST:  Okay.
15             MR. MULLER:  Prions are the infectious agents
16    of chronic wasting disease and other kinds of illnesses
17    that involve degeneration of the brain, and they
18    generally can’t be disinfected by — They are not
19    necessarily adequately disinfected by techniques that
20    kill fungi and bugs and so on.
21             So my question is in these amendments and the
22    exemptions and the tests that are here for the adequacy
23    of disinfection, have you considered prions?
24             MS. VEST:  Is anybody here from the Department
1    able to answer that?
2             MS. J’ANTHONY:  I think that would be best put
3    in writing.
4             MR. MULLER:  Well, I am putting it right here
5    now verbally.
6             MS. VEST:  Well, Alan, once again the
7    Department is trying to entertain your questions.  We
8    are not saying we are not going to answer them.  We are
9    just saying put them in writing because we weren’t
10    coming tonight to ask questions or receive comment on
11    everything, just the proposed amendments.  I have to
12    ask you to move on.
13             MR. MULLER:  Okay, so if I was to propose an
14    additional amendment to the regulations, you would
15    consider that to be —
16             MS. VEST:  You could certainly do that.  You
17    could certainly do that, propose it in writing.
18             MR. MULLER:  Well, I am proposing things
19    verbally, and I don’t feel that you are listening.
20             MS. VEST:  The court reporter is.
21             MR. MULLER:  Well, I hope so.  I think I am
22    done except for a couple of procedural questions.  When
23    will the transcript be available?
24             MS. VEST:  The court reporter has seven days
1    to get it to us under their contract.
2             MR. MULLER:  Okay, and you provide it
3    immediately to Green Delaware?
4             MS. VEST:  If you want me to, I will make a
5    note to forward it to you as soon as I get it.
6             MR. MULLER:  Okay, well, I am requesting that
7    now.
8             MS. VEST:  Okay.
9             MR. MULLER:  I would like the transcript.
10    When can I expect answers to my questions from the
11    Department?
12             MS. VEST:  As soon as —
13             MR. MULLER:  A timetable?
14             MS. VEST:  Well, let me answer that with a
15    question, Alan.  Are you willing to make the effort and
16    put them in writing to us?
17             MR. MULLER:  Well, I don’t know that I want to
18    repeat in writing the questions that I have put on the
19    record now.
20             MS. VEST:  Well, then, we have to wait and get
21    the transcript.  If you are not going to make that step
22    and put them in writing and we have to rely on the
23    transcript, then the Department is going to have to
24    have an opportunity to review the transcript.
1             MR. MULLER:  Well, I agree, so what kind of
2    schedule are we looking at?
3             MS. VEST:  Again, Alan, I am not inclined to
4    let the record stay open beyond October 31.  This
5    matter was workshopped.  I understand, you know, if you
6    didn’t have a chance to put them in writing before
7    tonight, but this has been on the Department’s
8    calendar, it’s been out there for quite sometime, it’s
9    been on my calendar for two months, so I don’t know why
10    you are not able to offer the stuff in writing.
11             MR. MULLER:  Well, I am asking you, Lisa, when
12    is the Department able to respond to the questions that
13    I have raised, and maybe you should ask the people who
14    are going to have to prepare the responses.
15             MS. VEST:  Well, again, to the extent that
16    they are related to the subject matter at hand tonight,
17    what is an adequate timetable for the Department, if
18    Mr. Muller were to get them to us in five working days?
19    Or does the Department believe that all of his
20    questions are outside the scope of tonight’s hearing?
21    Is there anything that the Department would wish to
22    elaborate on that would be considered within the scope
23    of these proposed amendments tonight, or are these just
24    questions in general?
1             What is your feel on that?  I am not asking
2    you to make a legal decision.  I am just asking you
3    what you guys feel on that.
4             Questions such as the general questions that
5    we started tonight, quite honestly, my ruling is that
6    they are outside the scope of this hearing, so when the
7    Department could respond to them, Alan, they will
8    respond to them, but it doesn’t necessarily affect the
9    timetable of these regulatory amendments.
10             MR. MULLER:  So you are announcing a ruling
11    that every one of the questions that I posed is outside
12    the scope of this hearing?
13             MS. VEST:  No, I didn’t say that.
14             MR. MULLER:  I thought you did.
15             MS. VEST:  I said to the extent that any of
16    your questions are outside of the scope of the proposed
17    amendments, it would not affect the timetable of this
18    particular regulatory proceeding.
19             MR. MULLER:  Well —
20             MS. VEST:  I am going to have to ask you,
21    Alan, I am going to be frank with you.  This matter has
22    been on the calendar for over two months now, and
23    if you are not willing to put your questions set forth
24    in writing, I am not going to force the Department to
1    give you a response on when you are going to get them.
2    And right now I have not seen anything that you have
3    offered that would cause me to extend the record beyond
4    October 31.
5             MR. MULLER:  Okay, well, I just have a closing
6    statement that — I think — May I do that?
7             MS. VEST:  Sure.
8             MR. MULLER:  And I will be done.
9             MS. VEST:  Sure.
10             MR. MULLER:  I guess I have participated in
11    quite a number of DNREC public hearings over the course
12    of the last 15 years, and this is one of the most
13    insulting and unsatisfactory proceedings that I have
14    had the displeasure of participating in, not only
15    procedurally with the constant interruptions and
16    insults from the hearing officer, but the fact that the
17    material presented is so utterly unsatisfactory and
18    that the Department has not been able to provide
19    meaningful answers to even the most rudimentary
20    questions, with a few exceptions.
21             It’s very disappointing, it’s extremely
22    discreditable to the Department, and it raises the
23    question in my mind of when, if ever, are we going to
24    see improvements in the management of solid waste in
1    Delaware with the attitudes that have been expressed
2    here tonight.
3             I mean two members of the public who have some
4    knowledge of this came, and we came because this is a
5    public hearing.  It is held under a Delaware statute,
6    and the statute says that the purpose of the hearing is
7    to establish a record, to provide a basis for a
8    decision.
9             The statute doesn’t say anything about
10    workshops.  Workshops have no legal significance under
11    Delaware law.
12             So I can’t say I am surprised, but I am
13    disappointed.  I think you can do better.  And I think
14    that those of you who have a desire to be part of
15    running a competent regulatory agency ought to try to
16    do that.
17             I think that I have been systematically
18    obstructed and prevented from offering testimony that
19    needs to be offered.  I would like to see responses to
20    these questions.  I would like to see the record remain
21    open for two weeks from the date of the Department’s
22    response to my questions, and I base that specifically
23    on the recent experience I mentioned in which we
24    received partial responses approximately six hours
1    before the record was scheduled to close.
2             That is not the way one operates in good
3    faith.  That’s not the way one allows public
4    participation in decision making.  That’s the way one
5    creates a farce.  And, with that, I will end my
6    comments.  Thank you for listening to me.
7             MS. VEST:  Thank you, Alan.  Again, for the
8    record, I would request that if there are any specific
9    questions or comments that you want to make sure get
10    noted in the record that pertain to these hearings, you
11    can feel free to add to what you have presented tonight
12    as part of the record.
13             The record will be open for receipt of public
14    comments through the close of business on October 31.
15             Is there anybody here tonight other than
16    Mr. Muller that wanted to offer comments or questions
17    regarding these proposed hearings or regulations?
18             Okay, that being said, I want to thank
19    everybody for coming out tonight.  Obviously, the
20    information presented tonight will be included as part
21    of the overall record for the Secretary’s review.  The
22    time is 7:23, and this hearing is adjourned.
23                       (Concluded at 7:23 p.m.)
1                       CERTIFICATE
2            I, Lorena J. Hartnett, a Notary Public
3   and Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby
4   certify that the foregoing is an accurate and
5   complete transcription of the proceeding held at
6   the time and place stated herein, and that the said
7   proceeding was recorded by me and then reduced to
8   typewriting under my direction, and constitutes a true
9   record of the testimony given by said witnesses.
10            I further certify that I am not a relative,
11   employee, or attorney of any of the parties or a
12   relative or employee of either counsel, and that I am
13   in no way interested directly or indirectly in this
14   action.
15            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
16   hand and affixed my seal of office on this 25th day of
17   October 2007.
21               ___________________________
22               Lorena J. Hartnett, R.P.R.
23      Reporter Certificate #134-RPR, Exp. 01-31-2008

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *